Anthony Lee Grable v. State ( 2015 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-14-00415-CR
ANTHONY LEE GRABLE APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. CR10406
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant Anthony Lee Grable pleaded guilty to
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West 2011). In accordance with the terms of the plea
bargain, the trial court placed him on eight years’ deferred adjudication
community supervision and assessed a $2000 fine.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
The State subsequently filed a petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging
that Grable had violated his community-supervision conditions by using alcohol
and a controlled substance. The trial court kept Grable on community
supervision but amended the conditions, adding that he complete a substance
abuse felony punishment program.
Later, the State filed another petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging
new community-supervision violations, including alcohol or drug use, failure to
maintain a home alcohol monitoring system, and failure to report. Grable
pleaded true to the allegations, and the trial court, finding the allegations true,
adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement. This
appeal followed.
Grable’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet
the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel
notified Grable of his motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the brief,
informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his pro se right
to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and
took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record by
providing him with a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. See 436 S.W.3d
2
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Grable the opportunity to
file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not do so.
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the
record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is
frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);
Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only
then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in
the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Sue Walker
SUE WALKER
JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: June 4, 2015
3